Why Biden cannot ignore Iraq and Afghanistan

When President Joe Biden made his first foreign policy speech two weeks ago, he never mentioned the words “Iraq” or “Afghanistan”. But events in these two countries over the past 24 hours have provided a strong reminder to the government that it cannot ignore America’s eternal wars forever.

In Iraq, rockets apparently launched by a Iran-backed militia on Monday, he killed a non-american civilian contractor at a military base in Erbil. Nine other people were injured, including four American contractors and one military, according to Col. Wayne Marotto, a spokesman for the US-led coalition against ISIS.

And in Afghanistan, the Taliban closed major cities just months before the scheduled departure of US forces on May 1. The insurgent group released an open letter to the Americans on Tuesday, basically asking the Biden government to trust the Taliban to lead the nation and respect human rights after the troops leave – a dubious statement at best.

Even though Biden prefers to spend most of his time tackling coronavirus, China and climate change, it is clear that, like every president since George W. Bush, he will continually have his attention diverted to Afghanistan and Iraq.

It is not that he and his team have neglected these countries. Defense chiefs from NATO countries will meet over the next two days, largely to discuss plans for Afghanistan and Iraq. The government is also reviewing its policies in both countries, weighing what to keep from the past four years and what to change.

But recent events have added an extra sense of urgency, with US troops under threat in an increasingly unstable Iraq, and a difficult decision looming for the president in Afghanistan: leave the country practically in ruin, or stay and face another mortal fighting season against the Taliban?

In normal times, these would be difficult questions for any administration. At this time, they are extremely difficult.

“It appears that the bandwidth for Afghanistan and Iraq is limited,” said Andrew Watkins, senior analyst for Afghanistan at the International Crisis Group. “It is not that there is no interest; is that there are other priorities. “

Iraq “will be on the agenda”

Iran has long used its ties to Shiite militia groups in Iraq, many of which are financed and directed by Tehran, to expand its influence in the country and thwart the US war effort there, including attacks on the US, Iraq and others international troops. Monday’s attack, then, was a lethal continuation of that stalemate.

Safin Hamed / AFP via Getty Images

It is not clear why the rocket attacks happened now. The most likely explanation that experts offered is that Iran is trying to put pressure on the US to lift sanctions and re-enter the nuclear deal. Whatever the reason, the attack makes it clear that Iraq remains a battleground between the US and Iran – meaning that it will remain a problem for the Biden government as long as US forces remain in the country.

“Iraq will continue to raise its head,” said Randa Slim, a senior researcher at the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC. “He will put himself on the agenda.”

Some analysts I spoke with said they hope Biden’s team will not see its policy on Iraq as merely an extension of Iranian policy. In fact, in addition to the Iranian proxy problem, Iraq is experiencing a deep governance crisis while millions of people are starving due to the collapse of the economy. Experts fear that a declining Iraq could be a breeding ground for ISIS’s resurgence.

At the moment, however, experts are not very satisfied with what they see from Biden’s team.

“During the Obama administration, [Iraq] the policy was designed not to aggravate Iran and sometimes to work indirectly together, whether to protect the nuclear deal or fight ISIS, with little regard for Iraq itself, ”said Rasha Al Aqeedi, senior analyst at the Newlines Institute of Strategy and DC policy. “Under Trump, Iraq was just a front to confront Iran. It seems that the Biden administration is reengineering the policy of the former. “

“Not considering an independent policy for Iraq has had a terrible outcome” in the past, she concluded.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment. But the government has said the right things, at least so far. A summary of a call on Tuesday between Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and his Iraqi counterpart noted that “the United States remains committed to supporting our Iraqi partners in their efforts to defend Iraq’s sovereignty” and the reaffirmation of “strategic partnership ”Between the two countries.

But whether Biden can sustain the time and attention needed for these complicated, long-term problems in Iraq – with everything that is already happening in the world – remains an initial question.

The deadline for withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan is fast approaching

On May 1, Biden must make a crucial decision: to withdraw all 2,500 American troops from Afghanistan or remain involved in the 20-year war?

Such a choice was imposed on this government by the latter. The United States and the Taliban reached an agreement last February: all American troops would leave the country in early May, and in the meantime, the Taliban would not attack US or NATO coalition troops. Both sides maintained their share of the deal, as some 10,000 military personnel left the country, while the United States suffered no deaths in combat.

Xinhua / Saifurahman Safi via Getty Images

Biden promised to bring American combat troops home from Afghanistan, but never committed himself to doing so immediately, surrendering until the end of his first term. He also said he would still potentially maintain a small US military presence in the country to continue counterterrorism operations against ISIS and al-Qaeda. This meant that it was always possible that Biden would not comply with the terms of the Trump era deal.

Your government has already signaled this. In January, Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said that Taliban violence against Afghans and continuing ties with al-Qaeda cast doubt on the United States’ scheduled departure for May, and the New York Times reported. this week the Department of Defense requested more military options for the country – including an increase in troops.

Government officials and experts have told me that Biden’s team is deeply involved in reviewing Afghanistan’s policy. Some are concerned that it is a laborious process that can reach the May 1 deadline. “They seem determined not to be in a hurry,” said Watkins of the International Crisis Group. Meanwhile, two American officials have told me that the review is almost complete, well ahead of schedule.

Still, the fact that the review has not been completed may explain why the Taliban published a letter on Tuesday urging the United States to leave sooner or later. “The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is aware of its obligations, the other parties must also fulfill their own obligations,” says the statement by Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar Akhund, head of the Taliban political office, using the group’s preferred name for his political organization. .

Of course, Biden faces an almost impossible decision. If he commits to the withdrawal, many analysts fear that the Taliban will exploit the resulting vacuum to press for another complete takeover of the country. The New York Times reports that the insurgent group has taken military posts outside major cities like Kunduz and Kandahar, perhaps in preparation for such a fight.

But if Biden decides to keep US troops in the country, it is likely that the US will see more Americans killed, adding to the 2,400 that have been lost since the US invaded the country in 2001. Furthermore, violating the terms of the US- Taliban it can end any chance of peace in the short term. “It could be a generation-defining moment in the Taliban, when they decide it’s not worth talking about,” said Watkins.

There are other issues that will arise during the NATO meeting this week, and the discussions there may inform what Biden will do. But the impending deadline may be a reason for the government – and the president in particular – to prioritize Afghanistan’s policy more than it has already done.